Technology Lab —

Google, MPEG LA agree to royalty-free terms for VP8 video codec

Agreement should put to rest lingering concerns over the algorithm.

Google and MPEG LA have announced that they have come to an agreement over Google's VP8 video codec. 11 patent holders have agreed that any patented techniques used by VP8 can be used without payment of a royalty, forever.

In 2010, Google bought On2, a company that developed video compression algorithms. Shortly after the purchase, Google offered On2's VP8 algorithm on a perpetually royalty-free basis, so that it could be readily used in open source projects.

MPEG LA sells licenses to various patented technologies. Video compression algorithms such as the widely used H.264 are usually covered by multiple patents held by multiple companies. MPEG LA works with these patent holders to pool them together and provide simple license agreements that cover the range of patents so that the algorithms can be licensed without having to negotiate with each company individually.

Soon after Google's decision to open source VP8, MPEG LA announced that it intended to form a patent pool of companies with patents relevant to VP8. In 2011, it announced that 12 companies had identified patents that covered aspects of the VP8 algorithm. Google, however, maintained that it owned all the relevant patents. Since that 2011 announcement, there has been little word from either company about the patent pool situation.

This agreement changes that. Google now has rights to any patents from the 11 companies party to the agreement that might cover VP8. Google can sublicense those patents, meaning that hardware and software companies are free to use the technology too. The agreement also covers any codecs derived from VP8, including the VP9 codec that's currently in development. MPEG LA will also end the patent pool creation process for VP8.

For its part, Google is still maintaining that it owns all the relevant patents to VP8. When asked if any money had changed hands, the online advertising company told us that it was a commercial agreement, but it couldn't go into any detail about the terms.

The list of 11 companies is currently not public, and it's not certain at this stage why MPEG LA initially said that 12 companies had relevant patents but only 11 are involved in the agreement.

This is good, albeit belated, news for VP8. It means that the codec's patent situation is at least as clear as that of H.264. In theory, some patent holder could still emerge from the woodwork and start suing, but neither agreements nor patent pools can preclude that option.

The news may come too late for VP8 to see widespread adoption as an Internet video codec. Although this was Google's original intent, with the company at one time promising to remove H.264 support from its Chrome browser, H.264's entrenchment within the video industry appears to have won out. Chrome still includes H.264 support (in addition to VP8), and even Firefox is imminently adding support for the codec.

However, VP8 or its successors could still find a place in other specs such as the WebRTC specification for browser-based audio/video communication. With a patent situation far clearer than it was in the past (if not quite crystal clear), it should be easier to mandate VP8 support in WebRTC and similar specifications.

While google may have preferred VP8 to become the standard, i think the final outcome is just as good. They were able to scare MPEG LA enough that the H.264 licensing situation is resolved to some degree in google's favor.

About the best that could be hoped for at this point. Between MPEG-LA successfully FUDing VP8/WebM and Google's "now we will, now we won't" approach to evangelizing it having reduced VP8/WebM into irrelevance, at least the way is clear for VP9. Hopefully, between that and Daala we'll be able to get something that won't require MPEG-LA's toll as an internet video standard.

For all of the talk I am surprised no one ever mentions how outdated VP8 actually is.

VP8 was just barely competitive with H.264... at this point the H.265 guys are way out in front. H.265 is getting H.264-like quality at half the file size; VP8 struggles to match H.264 (and usually doesn't) at identical sizes.

So, in the end what happened is basically what MS did for Windows 7 users and H.264. Google licensed (and payed for) the patents so that anyone could use (in the case of Win 7, MS licensed them just for Windows users).

it should be easier to mandate VP8 support in WebRTC and similar specifications.

Why should we be forced to use an inferior codec? I have already paid for my computer HW, phone HW, which both support a superior H.264. Now with H.265 around the corner, why should we waste precious mobile bandwidth using VP8?

For all of the talk I am surprised no one ever mentions how outdated VP8 actually is.

VP8 was just barely competitive with H.264... at this point the H.265 guys are way out in front. H.265 is getting H.264-like quality at half the file size; VP8 struggles to match H.264 (and usually doesn't) at identical sizes.

VP8 was boneheaded and doomed from the start. A lame copy of an existing entrenched standard (H264 final draft May 2003).

Google should instead have been working on a next generation format. Vp8: boring and stupid waste of time. VpNextGeneration: exciting stuff. There is so much to do:1) High Dynamic Range2) Greater gamut coverage3) Rip out the legacy crap that destroys freeze frames that are legible. Sequential frame format, not interleaved in bizarre fashion like a monkey on crack designed it.4) Support higher definitions.5) Higher frame rates, like north of 60fps so flicker goes away. Maybe set the bar above 120fps so 3D does not flicker.

This would result in something people want to adopt instead of some rubbish nobody wants to use because they already use something better.

The only FUD around vp8 was that somehow h264 is inferior because ... patents? Silly.

For all of the talk I am surprised no one ever mentions how outdated VP8 actually is.

VP8 was just barely competitive with H.264... at this point the H.265 guys are way out in front. H.265 is getting H.264-like quality at half the file size; VP8 struggles to match H.264 (and usually doesn't) at identical sizes.

You are missing the point entirely. It doesn't have to be superior. It has to be usable without restriction.

> This is good, albeit belated, news for VP8. It means that the codec's patent situation is at least as clear as that of H.264.

The situation isn’t quite as clear as H.264. Without a patent pool, there’s always the possibility of someone coming along later and demanding royalties.

With a patent pool any new party asking for royalties would be forced to join the pool and would not be able to affect the existing royalty much, unless they demonstrate their patent has extraordinary utility relative to the patents already in the pool (very unlikely).

Still, the situation for VP8 is *much* better than before. Too late for VP8, perhaps, but VP9 or VP10 will be on the industry’s radar.

A patent pool does not require new parties to join. Heck, technically, MPEG-LA does not represent all of the patent holders for h.264, and if that one hold-out decides to sue (and not have their patent invalidated), heaven help the industry.

> This is good, albeit belated, news for VP8. It means that the codec's patent situation is at least as clear as that of H.264.

The situation isn’t quite as clear as H.264. Without a patent pool, there’s always the possibility of someone coming along later and demanding royalties.

With a patent pool any new party asking for royalties would be forced to join the pool and would not be able to affect the existing royalty much, unless they demonstrate their patent has extraordinary utility relative to the patents already in the pool (very unlikely).

Still, the situation for VP8 is *much* better than before. Too late for VP8, perhaps, but VP9 or VP10 will be on the industry’s radar.

It sounds like the party pool still exists technically. How I see it is that eventually the two standards will be offered and most devices as I am sure they both of their own benefits, perhaps more so with their new revisions, at least going forward.

With a patent pool any new party asking for royalties would be forced to join the pool and would not be able to affect the existing royalty much, unless they demonstrate their patent has extraordinary utility relative to the patents already in the pool (very unlikely).

Legally, in the US I don't think any company is forced to join the pool. Isn't that a factor in the Motorola-Microsoft lawsuit? MS paid the pool, but Moto is not a member and wants to be paid separately.

A patent pool does not require new parties to join. Heck, technically, MPEG-LA does not represent all of the patent holders for h.264, and if that one hold-out decides to sue (and not have their patent invalidated), heaven help the industry.

In litigation the court would almost certainly require the patent holder to join the pool, or explain why they want to charge rates significantly above what the pool is charging.

That was a brilliant read... That link might just entertain me for a while, seeing how there is a link at the bottom of the article which purports to show how Apple Maps is gives superior directions than Google Maps on iOS, not to mention a mathematically bizarre claim that iOS's 3.5% growth was "Android's loss".

Sorry to go off-topic, but this - http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/03/ ... ears-later - is truly, honest, the most bizarre "tech" article I've read in a long, long time. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure every platform has it's rabid fanboys, that's not what I find so baffling, it's the personality cult that is terrifying and hilarious in equal measure.

Sorry to go off-topic, but this - http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/03/ ... ears-later - is truly, honest, the most bizarre "tech" article I've read in a long, long time. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure every platform has it's rabid fanboys, that's not what I find so baffling, it's the personality cult that is terrifying and hilarious in equal measure.

For all of the talk I am surprised no one ever mentions how outdated VP8 actually is.

VP8 was just barely competitive with H.264... at this point the H.265 guys are way out in front. H.265 is getting H.264-like quality at half the file size; VP8 struggles to match H.264 (and usually doesn't) at identical sizes.

You are missing the point entirely. It doesn't have to be superior. It has to be usable without restriction.

And you missed the point too. It doesn't have to be useable without restriction; it has to be useable in enough situations that it's strengths become apparent.

That is why H.264 won; it wasn't encumbered enough to stop it (see GIF, JPEG, MP3, AAC), and it was good enough to displace everyone else including VP8.

VP8 wasn't technically superior, so it didn't have any advantages, and H.264 wasn't sufficiently encumbered that VP8's free nature was valuable.

Another example: GIMP vs Photoshop Elements, where GIMP being free isn't sufficient when Photoshop Elements is only $80. Sure, $80 is a lot, but not so much that people would stop using Photoshop when GIMP isn't superior.

While google may have preferred VP8 to become the standard, i think the final outcome is just as good. They were able to scare MPEG LA enough that the H.264 licensing situation is resolved to some degree in google's favor.

They didn't scare anyone. They were the one running scared. I'm not even sure that what was said in this article about Google not paying for the patents is true. It would make no sense that companies deriving income from those patents would relieve Google from the requirement of paying for licenses as everyone else does.

About the best that could be hoped for at this point. Between MPEG-LA successfully FUDing VP8/WebM and Google's "now we will, now we won't" approach to evangelizing it having reduced VP8/WebM into irrelevance, at least the way is clear for VP9. Hopefully, between that and Daala we'll be able to get something that won't require MPEG-LA's toll as an internet video standard.

MPEG-LA didn't "FUd" anyone. They said they owned patents there, and they do. It was Google who sunk in their own FUd by saying that it was free from external licensing requirements. If they agreed in the beginning, then it might have mattered. But now, it's unlikely. VP* just muddies the waters. It isn't needed.

Sorry to go off-topic, but this - http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/03/ ... ears-later - is truly, honest, the most bizarre "tech" article I've read in a long, long time. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure every platform has it's rabid fanboys, that's not what I find so baffling, it's the personality cult that is terrifying and hilarious in equal measure.

I would just like to thank Google for spending the resources to keep the MPEG-LA in check. H.264 is the superior solution, but without some kind of competition, MPEG-LA could ask for even greater licensing fees. I believe a similar process will occur for H.265 and VP9. H.265 will either be superior, or at least be roughly on par. But H.265 has more industry backing. So Google's efforts will not create a more popularly-utilized codec, but will keep the MPEG-LA from demanding even higher royalties than they are currently planning.

Frankly, this probably still represents a net gain to Google. At the end of the day, Google doesn't really care what codec gets used. Hell, they use proprietary codecs in their own products. What Google cares about is that a monopoly codec cannot demand monopoly fees. That would inhibit the adoption of advanced video products on-line. Google has an interest in two things: (i) the adoption of advanced codecs which will make storing video files cheaper and (ii) the proliferation of video services that people will want to search. Google cares more about the web advancing than they do about the exact technologies that drive that advancement.

EDIT: It's the same argument for why Google originally developed Chrome: Worst case, Chrome would never gain significant market share but might force other browser makers to improve the web experience. More people spending more time on the web doing more different things is good for Google. The fact that Chrome became a poplar browser was a bonus. The fact that is was available to become the browser for Android was a bonus. The subsequent re-working into an OS seems to have been an early idea, but not an initial driver of the project.

HEVC work began in 2004 and reached final draft status (that is, the standard is finalized) in January 2013. Hardware implementations exist today. It's the real deal. Expect it to show up in flagship smartphones next year.

Granted, I wouldn't expect to see mainstream video providers switching to H.265 overnight, but it's not like they're going to switch to VP8 either. H.265 is clearly the (essentially unchallenged) upgrade path going forward at any rate. I don't think there are any remotely credible challengers to H.265. Its only real competition is H.264 (i.e., content providers choose not to switch at all, like JPEG versus JPEG-2000).

I'm curious though is h264 royalty free if you are creating something that is free?

Simple answer: "no"

Complicated answer: it depends.

Encoders/Decoders: MPEG-LA only requires licensing of end-products. So ffmpeg is not in violation, as they only distribute source code. You are also not in violation if you download ffmpeg and compile it for your own use. When someone like Synology includes ffmpeg as a binary in their NAS, they have to pay royalties. If Mozilla wants to ship a decoder even in a free browser, they would have to pay royalties.

However, the licensing fee structure is $0 if you ship below 100,000 copies.

Video Encoded in H.264: Depending on the delivery/payment methodology, royalties may be required to be paid to MPEG-LA for commercial distribution of H.264-encoded video. No royalties are required for home movies, etc. Also no royalties requried for on-demand distrubuted content shorter than 12 minutes. But the professional wedding video guy technically would have to pay royalties.

The fee structure gets complicated fast, but I think that short synopsis should answer your question.

I'm curious though is h264 royalty free if you are creating something that is free?

Simple answer: "no"

Complicated answer: it depends.

Encoders/Decoders: MPEG-LA only requires licensing of end-products. So ffmpeg is not in violation, as they only distribute source code. You are also not in violation if you download ffmpeg and compile it for your own use. When someone like Synology includes ffmpeg as a binary in their NAS, they have to pay royalties. If Mozilla wants to ship a decoder even in a free browser, they would have to pay royalties.

However, the licensing fee structure is $0 if you ship below 100,000 copies.

Video Encoded in H.264: Depending on the delivery/payment methodology, royalties may be required to be paid to MPEG-LA for commercial distribution of H.264-encoded video. No royalties are required for home movies, etc. Also no royalties requried for on-demand distrubuted content shorter than 12 minutes. But the professional wedding video guy technically would have to pay royalties.

The fee structure gets complicated fast, but I think that short synopsis should answer your question.

Thanks for that. Only reason I asked is I'm creating a free video game and I'm guessing using h264 is out of the question for the video sequences. I'm guessing using VP8 would be the better option.

This is nice I guess. I'm all for open over stupid licensing but we have to admit that h.264 is simply superior as well as the upcoming h.265. All I ask for is to eliminate completely VFR on everything, I hate this complicated ineditable thing, along with flash all over the friggin place on sites. Oh, where's my OpenCL, hardware compatible x.264 CPU/GPU's?